Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[9sublime]

Again. I have never said that unborns were either emotional or intelligent. Neither of those are requirements of being human beings.

If you are arguing for the rights of animals, then start a thread. This one is not about animal rights.

Well then what makes a human really special when it is in the womb compared to an animal? Especially if it is, for example, going to be so severely disabled that it cannot truely think, or posess emotions and real intelligence. Simply that it is human? Because it looks like us? In that case its just as justified for people to say "whites are better than blacks, because they look like me."

I'm using the idea of specism to highlight the fact that a human embyro is less intelligent than other animals you have less desire to keep alive, and you simply favour it because it is of the same species as you, not because of what it is in the womb. In the womb, a child is nothing, it is potential, and potential that should be allowed to happen, but it is still not an intelligent, thinking being worthy of a decision. It doesn't know its living, so it wont know when its not living.

 

[palerider]

Either you're not making sense...or I'm not understanding what you are trying to say here...

I am not surprised. You have gloamed onto some science that you don't understand and are trying to make a case out of it when a case doesn't exist.

In a normal pregnancy, The unborn's genetic makeup is a combination of the mother's and the father's DNA. In the case of a trophoblastic tumor, on the other hand, it has two paternal nuclei. That is, the DNA present in the sperm continues to exist as the father's DNA and the DNA that exists in the egg continues to exist as the mother's DNA. A trophoblastic tumor is not the result of fertilization. It is a biological process that has gone wrong and simply can not be compared to an unborn at any stage. These moles and resulting tumors were never zygotes and furthermore, have 69 chromosomes rather than 46. Can you point me to some science that suggests that any human being can have 69 chromosomes?

Normal unborns, those that are 46xx or 46xy, as well as those slightly less than normal, such as trisomy 13-zygotes (Patau syndrome), or trisomy-18 zygotes (Edwards Syndrome), or trisomy-21 zygotes (Down’s Syndrome), or those withKlinefelter’s Syndrome (47XXY), or Turner’s Syndrome (45XO) meet the genetic structure requirements for constituting a human being but no human being can exist with 69 chromosomes.

I have noted that this silly argument has failed you wherever you have tried it. Why bother bringing it here? Now that you know that the number of chromosomes eliminate the possibility of confusing it with a human being, I will be interested to see if you continue to use it on other boards.

I believe I used simple science to refute your point. I kept my argument to one point: what is the definition of a human being?

You used your misunderstanding of simple science in an effort to refute a point but only succeeded in demonstrating that you misunderstood the science.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. A trophoblastic tumor has too many chromosomes to be even remotely considered as a member of homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[palerider]

Well then what makes a human really special when it is in the womb compared to an animal? Especially if it is, for example, going to be so severely disabled that it cannot truely think, or posess emotions and real intelligence. Simply that it is human? Because it looks like us? In that case its just as justified for people to say "whites are better than blacks, because they look like me."

Are you suggesting that fetal stem cell research only be done on embryos that are so severely malformed that they will not mature normally?

I'm using the idea of specism to highlight the fact that a human embyro is less intelligent than other animals you have less desire to keep alive, and you simply favour it because it is of the same species as you, not because of what it is in the womb. In the womb, a child is nothing, it is potential, and potential that should be allowed to happen, but it is still not an intelligent, thinking being worthy of a decision. It doesn't know its living, so it wont know when its not living.

What you are doing is making an appeal to emotion and it has no place in this debate.

 

[Coyote]

I am not surprised. You have gloamed onto some science that you don't understand and are trying to make a case out of it when a case doesn't exist.

In a normal pregnancy, The unborn's genetic makeup is a combination of the mother's and the father's DNA. In the case of a trophoblastic tumor, on the other hand, it has two paternal nuclei. That is, the DNA present in the sperm continues to exist as the father's DNA and the DNA that exists in the egg continues to exist as the mother's DNA. A trophoblastic tumor is not the result of fertilization. It is a biological process that has gone wrong and simply can not be compared to an unborn at any stage. These moles and resulting tumors were never zygotes and furthermore, have 69 chromosomes rather than 46. Can you point me to some science that suggests that any human being can have 69 chromosomes?

Normal unborns, those that are 46xx or 46xy, as well as those slightly less than normal, such as trisomy 13-zygotes (Patau syndrome), or trisomy-18 (Edwards Syndrome), or trisomy-21 (Down’s Syndrome), or those withKlinefelter’s Syndrome (47XXY), or Turner’s Syndrome (45XO) meet the genetic structure requirements for constituting a human being but no human being can exist with 69 chromosomes.

I have noted that this silly argument has failed you wherever you have tried it. Why bother bringing it here? Now that you know that the number of chromosomes eliminate the possibility of confusing it with a human being, I will be interested to see if you continue to use it on other boards.

Why should I take you at your word just because you "say" it's "silly"? That is why I asked for an explanation. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong - when I am wrong. Do you?

And here, now that you've offered an explanation - I admit it. No problem your haughtyness.

You used your misunderstanding of simple science in an effort to refute a point but only succeeded in demonstrating that you misunderstood the science.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. A trophoblastic tumor has too many chromosomes to be even remotely considered as a member of homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[9sublime]

Are you suggesting that fetal stem cell research only be done on embryos that are so severely malformed that they will not mature normally?



What you are doing is making an appeal to emotion and it has no place in this debate.

No, I'm saying that an undeveloped, unborn foetus is nothing inside the womb, as it possess less ability to live, think and feel as a limb of an animal.

And as for an appeal to emotion, yes, I am, because a stance on abortion is directly influenced by your emotion on the subject, not just the politics behind it. This is all about emotion (for about the 10th time) so stop being so stubborn Palerider. Emotions been in the debate all along, deal with it.

 

[Coyote]

No, I'm saying that an undeveloped, unborn foetus is nothing inside the womb, as it possess less ability to live, think and feel as a limb of an animal.

And as for an appeal to emotion, yes, I am, because a stance on abortion is directly influenced by your emotion on the subject, not just the politics behind it. This is all about emotion (for about the 10th time) so stop being so stubborn Palerider. Emotions been in the debate all along, deal with it.

Exactly: even the simple act of calling an embryo a "child" or "the unborn" puts it on an emotional footing.

 

[Coyote]

I am not surprised. You have gloamed onto some science that you don't understand and are trying to make a case out of it when a case doesn't exist.

In a normal pregnancy, The unborn's genetic makeup is a combination of the mother's and the father's DNA. In the case of a trophoblastic tumor, on the other hand, it has two paternal nuclei. That is, the DNA present in the sperm continues to exist as the father's DNA and the DNA that exists in the egg continues to exist as the mother's DNA. A trophoblastic tumor is not the result of fertilization. It is a biological process that has gone wrong and simply can not be compared to an unborn at any stage. These moles and resulting tumors were never zygotes and furthermore, have 69 chromosomes rather than 46. Can you point me to some science that suggests that any human being can have 69 chromosomes?

Normal unborns, those that are 46xx or 46xy, as well as those slightly less than normal, such as trisomy 13-zygotes (Patau syndrome), or trisomy-18 zygotes (Edwards Syndrome), or trisomy-21 zygotes (Down’s Syndrome), or those withKlinefelter’s Syndrome (47XXY), or Turner’s Syndrome (45XO) meet the genetic structure requirements for constituting a human being but no human being can exist with 69 chromosomes.

I have noted that this silly argument has failed you wherever you have tried it. Why bother bringing it here? Now that you know that the number of chromosomes eliminate the possibility of confusing it with a human being, I will be interested to see if you continue to use it on other boards.



You used your misunderstanding of simple science in an effort to refute a point but only succeeded in demonstrating that you misunderstood the science.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. A trophoblastic tumor has too many chromosomes to be even remotely considered as a member of homo sapiens sapiens.

Here is something interesting - it sounds like not all molar pregancies are as you describe - some are bi-parental. I'm assuming that means chromosomes from both parents are present in the normal numbers.

http://www.isstd.org/journal/vol5/Hunting the Genes.htm

The repeat molar pregnancies have a phenotype indistinguishable from the androgenetic complete moles, but they have a normal biparental chromosome constitution . A few rare families have been described in which multiple sisters have repeat molar pregnancies of biparental origin.​

 

[palerider]

Exactly: even the simple act of calling an embryo a "child" or "the unborn" puts it on an emotional footing.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Child • noun (pl. children) 1) a young human being below the age of full physical development

Old English - cild "child," from P.Gmc. *kiltham (source of Gothic kilþei "womb" )

There is nothing emotional about using words as they were ment to be used. Your denial of the words and what they mean is emotional on your part.

 

[vyo476]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Child • noun (pl. children) 1) a young human being below the age of full physical development

Old English - cild "child," from P.Gmc. *kiltham (source of Gothic kilþei "womb" )

There is nothing emotional about using words as they were ment to be used. Your denial of the words and what they mean is emotional on your part.

One of the most common ways of describing a pregnant woman is to say that she is "with child."

 

[palerider]

No, I'm saying that an undeveloped, unborn foetus is nothing inside the womb, as it possess less ability to live, think and feel as a limb of an animal.

If you call a human being nothing.

And as for an appeal to emotion, yes, I am, because a stance on abortion is directly influenced by your emotion on the subject, not just the politics behind it. This is all about emotion (for about the 10th time) so stop being so stubborn Palerider. Emotions been in the debate all along, deal with it.

This is not an emotional argument for me. Perhaps it is emotional for you. If I were trying to deny that human beings were in fact human beings so that I could exploit them and perform medical experiments on them, I suppose I would be emotional if I weren't willing to simply state my postion in honest terms as you clearly are not willing to do.

You are fine with fetal stem cell research. But only if you can first convince yourself and everyone else that the embryos that are being killed aren't really human beings and your inability to convince anyone with sound scientific knowledge is the source of your emotionality on this subject. The more clear it becomes that embryos are indeed human beings, the more emotional you become in yoru denial.

 

[palerider]

One of the most common ways of describing a pregnant woman is to say that she is "with child."

Always has been. Words mean what they mean.

very good point.

 

[palerider]

http://www.isstd.org/journal/vol5/Hunting the Genes.htm

The repeat molar pregnancies have a phenotype indistinguishable from the androgenetic complete moles, but they have a normal biparental chromosome constitution . A few rare families have been described in which multiple sisters have repeat molar pregnancies of biparental origin.​

Your article refers to complete molar pregnancies. A complete molar pregnancy has only placental parts (there is no child), and are formed when the sperm fertilizes an empty egg. Because the egg is empty, no child is formed. The placenta grows and produces the pregnancy hormone, hCG. It takes no more than an ultrasound to show that there is no fetus, only a placenta.

Try as hard as you like, but you are simply not going to be able to make a human being out of a tumor.

 

[Coyote]

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

Child • noun (pl. children) 1) a young human being below the age of full physical development

Old English - cild "child," from P.Gmc. *kiltham (source of Gothic kilþei "womb" )

There is nothing emotional about using words as they were meant to be used. Your denial of the words and what they mean is emotional on your part.

I use the words blastocyst, embryo, and fetus - in themselves scientific terms describing the stage of development. Common usage of child is to describe one already born. The term "the unborn" is new verbage that is a deliberate term to evoke an emotional response. People use the term "with child" and they also use the term "loaf in the oven". Does that mean the product is bread?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Palerider,
I would just like to point out to you that your thread has been totally hijacked. This was a thread about stem cell research, and since certain people know that the only successful stem cell research has been with adult stem cells, they turn the conversation to an abortion thread.

 

[Coyote]

Your article refers to complete molar pregnancies. A complete molar pregnancy has only placental parts (there is no child), and are formed when the sperm fertilizes an empty egg. Because the egg is empty, no child is formed. The placenta grows and produces the pregnancy hormone, hCG. It takes no more than an ultrasound to show that there is no fetus, only a placenta.

Try as hard as you like, but you are simply not going to be able to make a human being out of a tumor.

Hmmm...good point. Ok, I give up this argument